|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Snufkin
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
176
« on: September 16, 2011, 19:55 »
Yeah, it is not so easy to find:
My dashboard -> Statistics - Convert My Credits
But you need to be in "Contributor Mode" and not "Customer Mode".
Not working for me. I'm in contributor more and my statistics are found at:
http://www.fotolia.com/Contributor/Statistics
There is no "Convert My Credits" on that statistics page. 
Click_click, if you go to "My Dashboard" there is a table called "Statistics" with a link to convert credits. I meant these statistics, and not "My Files"-Statistics.
177
« on: September 16, 2011, 18:44 »
Yeah, it is not so easy to find:
My dashboard -> Statistics - Convert My Credits
But you need to be in "Contributor Mode" and not "Customer Mode".
178
« on: September 16, 2011, 18:25 »
CT Scan
120 - my country - this was the least expensive but depending on area it can cost a maximum of 160
$698 - USA  - this was the minimum but I saw numbers like $2000 or $3000 or $8000!
EKG
12 - my country
$470 - USA - but it can go up to $2850
Cardiac Stress Test
100 - my country
$1100 - USA - but it can go up to $10.000
Wow, that's ridiculous. A few years ago I had EKG, CT, Cardiac Stress Test and didn't pay a cent. Everything was done on modern equipment. Our health insurance costs about 15% of the gross salary, about 7% is paid by the employer, about 8% by the employee. You can buy additional private insurance if you want. If you visit a doctor you pay 10 , but you pay it only once in a quarter, no matter how often you visit your doctor. My doctor's office is in the house next to mine  I can't really complain. Our GDP per capita is somewhat lower than in the US, but our debt is much lower and we have lower unemployment. I visited the US 3 times as a student and I must say that for the average person the quality of life is much higher in Western / Northern Europe. On the other hand, the really rich in the US have much more money than the rich in Europe.
179
« on: September 15, 2011, 16:19 »
Alamy
180
« on: September 15, 2011, 13:53 »
I have never submitted to Crestock because of their bad reputation.
For me the worst reviewers are definetely at 123RF, although when I started in 2008 they were quite good.
Depending on the batch I have about 85-100% acceptance at SS and DT, but 123RF would reject everything but the weakest photos from the batch. I don't contribute there actively anymore, doesn't make sense.
I suspect they switched to some sort of automated reviewing process in 2009. People shooting models still report good acceptance rates. I don't have rejection problems anywhere else.
181
« on: September 10, 2011, 06:02 »
Why do you upload in Firefox and not with FTP?
182
« on: September 09, 2011, 12:10 »
Do you accept footage shot on other cameras, for example Canon 5D Mk II?
I've seen some clips that are available only in HD 1080, so I would assume yes, but you keep mentioning RED everytime and that's why I am asking.
If yes, what requirements must the clips meet, e.g. which Quicktime codecs, clip duration, file size limit (if any), etc.
Your FAQ are not so specific.
183
« on: September 04, 2011, 15:57 »
Nothing of the kind. I accept that a new agency won't earn me as much; I'm placing a bet that their higher royalty will lead to better earnings in time, or at least enough income to justify the incremental effort of uploading.
Well, 25% is hardly high royalty. It is more than IS, but many agencies offer much higher royalties. 25% from a new agency, with that pricing is simply ridiculous. It's not an either/or situation. I withdraw from iStock not because they don't earn; they're still my #2 earner, although I don't know for how much longer. I do it because they broke faith with me, and that is something I will not tolerate.
I hate what they have been doing during the last year, but I actually appreciate that they raise prices. If they lose customers because of that - I don't care, it gives the fairer sites better chances to compete. With Photodune's it's the other way around, they are undercutting everybody. That indeed is unsustainable. I also don't assume, as you clearly do, that it's a race to the bottom. It may turn out that way, but it's not a matter of when Dreamstime and others reduce their rates but if. Not every business will choose to increase their margins by screwing their suppliers. Well, that has been the trend so far, hasn't it? Don't you think it's better not to provoke them? If the agencies see that their suppliers are happy with much lower commissions, why not adjust them? If they adjust them to the level with which you are comfortable elsewhere, would it be 'screwing'? C'mon disorderly, 1.25 for ELs makes getty or FT look like generous uncles, do you really need that? Why not refrain from uploading and ask for a reasonable deal? Without content this site is worthless and eventually they would have to offer better terms.
184
« on: September 04, 2011, 14:39 »
Yes, I think PhotoDune's a better deal. For one thing, I'm getting a higher royalty than iStock ever gave me.
Now you say that a higher royalty rate is better, whereas above you wrote: "I'm more concerned with the dollar total than individual earnings. ". So, you'd rather earn less but with a higher royalty rate. OK, now for yourself please do a projection how much money you will lose in one year when DT adjusts their pricing and royalty structure to Photodune's levels.
185
« on: September 04, 2011, 14:12 »
So I leave iStock and Fotolia a little at a time, first removing non- and poor sellers, and eventually the stuff that makes money. I want to optimize my return on the effort I've already expended. (...) The effort was low, compensation was adequate, and I'm more concerned with the dollar total than individual earnings.
Wow, you think that Photodune is a better deal than IS. I'd rather earn 5-7 USD for an XXXL than 2.25, or 30 USD for an EL than 1.25. It seems that you either skipped maths at school or you're smoking something really bad. And so far PhotoDune has done awfully well, far better than any site since the original bunch I joined back in 2005 and 2006.
Some of the new sites tried to offer good commisions with a decent pricing. Imagine that in one town there are two dealers selling the same product. Dealer 1 buys that product from the supplier for 10 USD and sells for 20 USD. Dealer 2 sells the same product for 8 USD and pays 1.50 USD to the same supplier. Which of the dealers will thrive? And who is the biggest idiot in all that? Of course the supplier digging his own grave by delivering goods to dealer 2. *insults edited out* By the time Photodune grows to be a meaningful agency, some new guys will come on the stage and will undercut Photodune's prices and roaylties by 50-60% 
186
« on: September 04, 2011, 12:13 »
Did this one on Friday. Not edited very well but I'm still learning.
http://youtu.be/tljVASQHR4o
That's pretty good sharpshot, I especially liked the first two sequences.
187
« on: September 04, 2011, 11:26 »
People complain about 0.28 subs, yet they are happy to accept 1.25 for an EL. A Level-5 sub on DT earns more (1.26) than an EL on Photodune If I were a major agency, I would shaft you people all day long, 24/7/365, you are so greedy that you just don't deserve a better treatment. I guess the idea is: "if I get a download on Photodune, I steal a download that another contributor would get on another site". Of course you might steal your own download but here is a thought: do a projection how much money you will lose in 1 year when IS and DT adjust their royalties to Photodune's levels, even if it hurts your brain.
188
« on: September 02, 2011, 18:49 »
Ok, i see people are uploading to site giving 25% of 3$ (not !) for large download and with the cheapest extended license of the market, including 5$ for extra small!!
Unbelievable, isn't it? Apparently some contributors are way more greedy than getty or FT. They just cannot let go those peanuts. Pathetic. There have been agencies that paid for uploads but apparently it is enough to set up an agency with the most c**** pricing in the universe and these people will flock there anyway. Then, in another thread they will complain about commission cuts at other agencies. They make me more sick than getty or FT.
189
« on: September 02, 2011, 18:13 »
And if you read the stats thread, many of us have reported BME's at SS over the past several months. So it's hard for me to take suggestions that they are in financial trouble seriously.
BMEs for many contributors in their business model don't have to mean high profits for the agency. Theoretically it might mean that more subscribers are using up their download quota. On the other hand, they must be the best EL seller on this planet (at least for me), OD sales have also been pretty strong. I never had an issue with the payment from SS, same procedure every month, no surprises.
190
« on: August 31, 2011, 16:30 »
It seems that 123RF don't like certain subjects. People who shoot typical microstock subjects, business handshakes, photos with lots of white pixels etc. tend to report good acceptance. I have 85-100% acceptance on SS and DT, depending on the batch. From time to time I give 123 a try - 1 batch got through, next 2 batches 90% or so rejections. The photos that they do accept sometimes are the worst in the whole batch. I have a nice cityscape of a European capital, on SS it is the most popular image from that country. A lunatic reviewer at 123RF rejected it for... minimal commercial value Well, now they have a new button for "Minimal commercial value", it used to be "poor lighting/composition". What's very funny, they now have an option to transfer such images to the editorial section If they restrict the usage, there's even less "commercial value". Absolutely no logic at all. OK, now it's the time when usually Anglee or Alex join us and ask us to send links to the rejected photos on other sites. AFAIK if you send them a link they usually revert the rejection and the image goes online. I don't do it because I have no time for such games. I keep my account and will try again, maybe in winter, or spring 2012. Maybe something changes by then.
191
« on: August 31, 2011, 12:55 »
Adobe Bridge -> Tools -> Batch Rename -> String Substitution
Works very well.
192
« on: August 30, 2011, 15:50 »
I stopped uploading long time ago and I am considering closing my account.
Mostly 0.30 subs, credit sales are extremely rare.
Revenue per download is ridiculously low.
193
« on: August 23, 2011, 18:28 »
194
« on: August 18, 2011, 14:25 »
Probably I am!
On first sight it seems so... But I still believe that they will raise up our part soon!
That is main reason...
I upload there all content that I have on Istock, so 25% is still better than 16% what I have there...
1. No, you won't get a significant raise. They would raise royalties if people hadn't uploaded or deleted their ports. 2. Don't look at percentages, look at dollar amounts. The dollar amount is your "threshold of pain". The agencies see that you can be paid peanuts for an XL credit sale and you don't feel pain so your royalties are gradually adjusted on other sites.
195
« on: August 18, 2011, 13:55 »
Here we go again!
We have to find something...
It seems this is way to go only down for now...
Let's talk about this problem....
I think you are crazy. When Photodune came with their crappy deal, you hurried to upload your stuff there. Why do you come complaning about cuts when you were one of the people who showed the agencies that they would accept even the most crappy deal? I wrote in the other thread that we should expect commission cuts. I hope you muppets are making a fortune on Photodune, but if I were FT I would cut your commissions furthermore, say to 0.15 - you will accept aynthing anyway.
196
« on: August 17, 2011, 17:11 »
Hey those are for photos not videos.
Ah, ok, thanks for waking me up I just saw "film" in the site name and assumed you deal with videos only, didn't read the whole thread. Footage prices are ok, images as well. I will have a look at your site when I have some more time and will consider signing up. Cheers
197
« on: August 17, 2011, 16:47 »
1 credit = 1 dollar (payout to artist is not any different)
Small 1 Credits
Medium 5 Credits
Large 8 Credits
X Large 10 Credits
Original 15 Credits
Not attractive for me. On Pond5 I price most of my clips at 50 USD or 70 USD. And they do sell well enough. I don't want to cannibalize my sales there. Yawn... Please wake me up when I can earn money on your site. Sayōnara
198
« on: August 12, 2011, 15:36 »
I think the new best match is quite good. One of my new files has made it to the top of a very popular search, and I'm an independent
199
« on: August 12, 2011, 13:33 »
those muppets you are talking are the ones killing microstock? were they the ones that asked for 15% royalties at IS? gime me a break my friend and talk seriously and perhaps work a little instead of talking without thinking
p.s: this will be my last post on this topic, not going to be the scapegoat
I wasn't referring specifically to the recent cuts at IS, but to the general downward trend. The example with the avatars was only to illustrate the helplessness of contributors when the rates are cut. It was not my intention to offend you or attack you in any way, Luis. My language might have been harsh, but the intention was to make people think. Photodune's launch is very bad news for us all.
200
« on: August 12, 2011, 13:16 »
People are constantly screaming for a union, but in fact, they just want someone bigger then themselves who is saving them from the bad agencies.
Instead of a union, some of these people should attend a math course first. We do not have a union (yet). But we have a community and many of us share the same thoughts. If you do no accept the rate of 25% please post below, so maybe we can change something together.
I don't see the percentage as the main problem with Photodune. If their prices were at IS level, 25% wouldn't be very bad, just not really attractive. The main problems are their ridiculous, insulting prices because they might force other agencies to adjust theirs. Basically, the more market share Photodune gets, the more the value of the stock market will shrink. The more success this agency has, the less royalties will be paid to photographers in the whole market. They don't create any new markets, there are enough buyers who are happy with current prices, Photodune's c####y prices make the value of the stock market shrink.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
